Cognitive Enhancement in Healthy Children Will Not Close the Achievement Gap in Education

The ubiquity of the fallacy of composition in cognitive enhancement and in education

Research into cognitive enhancement is highly controversial, and arguments for and against it have failed to identify the logical fallacy underlying this debate: the fallacy of composition. The fallacy of composition is a lesser-known fallacy of ambiguity, but it has been explored and applied extensively to other fields, including economics. The fallacy of composition, which occurs when the characteristics of the parts of the whole are incorrectly extended to apply to the whole itself, and the conclusion is false, should be addressed in the debate on cognitive enhancement and within education. Within cognitive enhancement, the premise that individual distinct cognitive processes can be enhanced by cognitive enhancers leads to the conclusion that they must enhance cognition overall, and this idea is pervasive in the literature. If the goal of cognitive enhancement is to enhance cognition or learning, and not merely individual cognitive processes, then this is a clear example of the fallacy of composition. The ambiguity of "cognitive," "cognition," and "enhancement" only perpetuates this fallacy and creates more confusion surrounding the purposes and goals of enhancement. Identifying this fallacy does not threaten the existing body of research; however, it provides a novel framework to explore new avenues for research, education, and enhancement, particularly through education reform initiatives. Education enhances and facilitates learning, and improvements to education could be considered cognitive enhancements. Furthermore, the same fallacy is ubiquitous in education; educators commit it by "teaching to the test" and prioritizing memorization over generalizable skills such as critical thinking and problem solving. We will explore these new avenues for research and highlight principles of learning success from other disciplines to create a clearer understanding of the means and ends of cognitive enhancement. Recognizing the pervasiveness of composition fallacy in cognitive enhancement and education will lead to greater clarity of normative positions and insights into student learning that steer away from fallacious reasoning.

Parents’ Perceptions on the Debated Parenting Practice of Cognitive Enhancement in Healthy Children and Adolescents

First evidence shows that some parents engage in the health-endangering practice of (mis-)using prescription drugs to boost their children’s school performance. But little is known about parental perspectives on this phenomenon. This study aims to better understand parents’ perspectives on the non-medical use of prescription drugs to improve healthy children’s cognitive functioning. We conducted twelve semi-structured face-to-face interviews with a diverse sample of parents in Germany, and applied qualitative content analysis to explore their perspectives on instrumentalizing prescription drugs for improving the performance of healthy children, including their underlying knowledge (gaps), moral evaluations, evaluations of accompanied risks and benefits, opinions on potential motivators, and wishes regarding policy-making. The results show that parents typically believed themselves knowledgeable about such prescription drug (mis-)use, although they were not aware of anyone in their social environment taking them for enhancement. Parents generally considered such behavior to be morally reprehensible, cheating, and similar to doping in sports, and they typically claimed that no situation or occasion could motivate them to administer prescription drugs to their healthy children. Health risks (including side effects or addiction) were a typical expectation of drug use. That doctors should give such drugs to healthy young people was seen as unjustifiable. The results suggest that morality and risk–benefit evaluations of parents play a major role in their decision-making concerning this potentially risky instrumentalization of non-medical drugs. These insights are of distinct importance, especially for future research and further discussions on this topic, such as an evidence-based public dialog and ethics debates.

‘Beyond’ Human Enhancement — Taking the Developing Country’s Perspective Seriously

Bioethicists and philosophers dominate the on-going debate on human enhancement. They have debated the definition of human enhancement as well as the potential impacts of human enhancement technologies (such as pharmaceutical enhancements or pre-natal selection). These discussions have percolated, through bioethics bodies and bioethics recommendations, policy makers and have eventually been translated into policy. While some suggestions have been based largely in Western liberal democracies, others have deliberated the geopolitical consequences of human enhancement technologies. This paper argues that the present debate currently lacks perspectives from developing countries. It begins by introducing the current debate on human enhancement and recognizes Allen Buchanan’s well-raised concerns on how these technologies may potentially cause new injustices for low- and middle-income countries (‘developing countries’). It then provides two arguments calling for further research into human enhancement from the perspective of developing countries. First, this paper will argue that the current frames with which enhancement technologies are viewed are inherently neoliberal and require change. The second argument shows how the potential impacts of human enhancement technologies in developing countries have not been fully realized by analyzing how human enhancement technologies will impact Thailand, a developing country.

Cognitive Enhancement: Unanswered Questions About Human Psychology and Social Behavior

Stimulant drugs, transcranial magnetic stimulation, brain-computer interfaces, and even genetic modifications are all discussed as forms of potential cognitive enhancement. Cognitive enhancement can be conceived as a benefit-seeking strategy used by healthy individuals to enhance cognitive abilities such as learning, memory, attention, or vigilance. This phenomenon is hotly debated in the public, professional, and scientific literature. Many of the statements favoring cognitive enhancement (e.g., related to greater productivity and autonomy) or opposing it (e.g., related to health-risks and social expectations) rely on claims about human welfare and human flourishing. But with real-world evidence from the social and psychological sciences often missing to support (or invalidate) these claims, the debate about cognitive enhancement is stalled. In this paper, we describe a set of crucial debated questions about psychological and social aspects of cognitive enhancement (e.g., intrinsic motivation, well-being) and explain why they are of fundamental importance to address in the cognitive enhancement debate and in future research. We propose studies targeting social and psychological outcomes associated with cognitive enhancers (e.g., stigmatization, burnout, mental well-being, work motivation). We also voice a call for scientific evidence, inclusive of but not limited to biological health outcomes, to thoroughly assess the impact of enhancement. This evidence is needed to engage in empirically informed policymaking, as well as to promote the mental and physical health of users and non-users of enhancement.

Why Parents Misuse Prescription Drugs to Enhance the Cognitive Performance of Healthy Children: The Influence of Peers and Social Media

The mechanisms affecting parents’ misuse of prescription stimulant drugs to boost healthy children’s school performance are hardly unknown. Using four web-based factorial vignette surveys (2×2 between-subjects design experiment), we investigated the willingness of U.S. parents with school-aged children to medicate a fictitious 13-year-old child whose grades had declined. We examined mechanisms of informational and normative social influence on their decision-making: others’ behavior ( NExperiment 1 = 359), others’ definitions ( NExperiment 2 = 326), social control ( NExperiment 3 = 325), and others’ experience ( NExperiment 4 = 313). In addition, we explored the moderating role of influential sources (close friends vs. social media). Parents were more willing to engage in said behavior when others reported engagement in this behavior or positive drug experiences, especially if both influences were transmitted via social media. Others’ definitions and social control had no effect. Thus, social media might be a channel for the prevention of pharmacological cognitive enhancement.